'Merit selection' for judges? No thank you
“Merit selection” legislation that would diminish judicial accountability to voters and enshrine in law attorneys' influence over who becomes a Pennsylvania appellate judge lacks genuine merit.
State Reps. Bryan Cutler, R-Peach Bottom, and Brian Sims, D-Philadelphia, propose merit selection for Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme court judges, which requires a constitutional amendment. They'd be chosen by the governor from a list provided by a bipartisan, 15-member nominating commission, then confirmed by the Senate.
Nominating commission members would be appointed by politicians — the governor (six), the House and Senate majority and minority leaders (eight) and the attorney general (one) — so politics would remain part of the process. And with some nominating commission members having to be lawyers, merit selection — advocated as an antidote to lawyers' influence in judicial elections — ironically would codify their influence.
The constitutional amendment would require passage in two consecutive legislative sessions, then approval in a voter referendum. So, voters are too dumb to choose judges themselves — but not to vote away their right to do so?
“The way you have checks and balances is at the ballot box,” says veteran state Rep. Tom Caltagirone, D-Reading, about the real merits of voters electing judges. He's minority chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — where this merit-selection bill must die, for the sake of transparency, judicial accountability and voters' rights.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- The Thursday wrap
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- THE BOX
- An NLRB ambush
- Election 2015: Local leaders needed
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes